Monday, November 24, 2008

Stanford law Professor Tino Cuéllar was named this week to lead President-elect Barack Obama's transition working group on immigration, putting him among the many scholars from the Bay Area who are helping shape the next administration.

The team is one of seven policy groups Obama has convened to develop priorities for the first months of his presidency on topics ranging from education to the economy to national security.

The task of overhauling the nation's immigration system stymied President Bush, who favored an approach combining tougher enforcement with legalization for the country's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants and a guest worker program to allow low-skilled foreign workers to enter legally in the future. Congress twice hammered out "comprehensive" bills on the issue, but Bush lacked the political capital to get the measures passed.

Obama must not only navigate the choppy political waters surrounding an immigration reform bill, but also address many related issues - whether to back an electronic workplace verification system up for reauthorization, how to tackle the unwieldy bureaucracy at the citizenship agency and whether to continue the current immigration enforcement raids.

Through a law school spokeswoman, Cuéllar declined to be interviewed, but lawyers and immigration experts across the country praised him Friday for his intellect and his grasp of both regulatory minutiae and the big picture of American immigration policy.

"He's brilliant beyond his years," said John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who met Cuéllar when he was a law student at Yale and encouraged him to go to work in Washington.

At 36, Cuéllar already has an impressive resume. Raised on the U.S.-Mexico border in Calexico (Imperial County), he earned his bachelor's degree at Harvard University before going to Yale Law School and finishing up with a doctorate in political science from Stanford, where he's now a full professor specializing in administrative law.

Along the way, he spent two years at the U.S. Treasury Department under President Bill Clinton, where he worked on fighting money-laundering operations.

Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

"He has considerable experience in the federal government, and his academic work has focused on analysis of complex organizations and the way they administer and devise public policy," said Yale Law School Professor Peter H. Schuck, who was one of Cuéllar's teachers and counts him as a friend. "He'll bring a very keen eye for organizational performance and a very innovative mind."

Cuéllar will co-lead the immigration policy group with Georgetown University Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff, who was second in command at the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton years.

While Aleinikoff's background in immigration law is deep, Cuéllar brings a broader perspective, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior staff member at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington.

The fact that Cuéllar grew up on the border may mean he has strong views about the border fence currently being expanded by the Department of Homeland Security, said Chishti.

"He also has ideas on how issues of trade and economic development (in other countries) implicate immigration movements," he said. "I think he will be very responsive to the concerns of American workers in the immigration debate."

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, the son of a migrant laborer from Mexico who has in recent years been one of the U.S. House's most ardent defenders of the rights of immigrants and workers, will serve as the new co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Grijalva, a border-state congressman who has boldly challenged the anti-immigrant and anti-labor excesses of congressional Republicans since his election to the House in 2002, promised "to move (the CPC) to the next level and continue to advance our progressive agenda in an effective and pragmatic manner."

The Arizona representative will serve with California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a returning co-chair, as the head of a caucus that currently numbers 73 members but could grow to more than 80 with the intake of two dozen new House Democrats when the next Congress is seated in January.

Woolsey's CPC co-chair in the current Congress, California Congresswoman Barbara Lee is stepping down from her CPC position to take over as the new chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Grijalva and Woolsey were elected to the co-chair positions at a caucus where Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison also competed for the leadership position. (The vote was reportedly Woolsey 30, Grijalva 26, Ellison 23, with the top two finishers taking the co-chair slots.)

Woolsey, a stalwart critic of the war in Iraq, declared after Wednesday's caucus meeting that, "From rebuilding our economy and expanding access to health care, to finally bringing our troops home from Iraq, our nation is at a unique time in it's history. Perhaps not since the Great Depression has there been a moment when the decisions and actions taken by those in Washington will have such a profound and lasting impact on generations to come. Today, we ensured that progressives continue to have a seat at the table, and a hand in crafting the legislation to come."

American progressives have won a major victory in helping to defeatJohn McCain and placing Barack Obama in the White House. The far righthas been broadly rebuffed, the neoconservative war hawks displaced,and the diehard advocates of neoliberal political economy are inthorough disarray. Of great importance, one long-standing crown jewelof white supremacy, the whites-only sign on the Oval Office, has beentossed into the dustbin of history.

The depth of the historical victory was revealed in the jubilation ofmillions who spontaneously gathered in downtowns and public spacesacross the country, as the media networks called Obama the winner.When President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama took the platform in Chicagoto deliver his powerful but sobering victory speech, hundreds ofmillions-Black, Latino, Asian, Native-American and white, men andwomen, young and old, literally danced in the streets and wept withjoy, celebrating an achievement of a dramatic milestone in a 400-yearstruggle, and anticipating a new period of hope and possibility.

Now a new period of struggle begins, but on a higher plane. Anemerging progressive majority will be confronted with many challengesand obstacles not seen for decades. Left and progressive organizersface difficult, uncharted terrain, a bumpy road. But much moreinteresting problems are before us, with solutions, should they beachieved, promising much greater gains and rewards. for the America ofpopular democracy.

To consciously build on the gains of this electoral victory, it'simportant to seek clarity. We need an accurate assessment of strengthsand weaknesses--our own, as well as those of our allies and ouradversaries.

The Obama campaign, formal and informal, was a wide undertaking. Itunited progressive forces, won over middle forces, then isolated anddivided the right. It massed the votes and resources required the wina clear majority of the popular vote and a decisive majority ofElectoral College votes.

At the base, beginning with the antiwar youth and peace activists,Obama awakened, organized, mobilized and deployed an incredible andinnovative force of what grew into an army of more than three millionvolunteers. At the top, he realigned a powerful sector of the rulingclass into an anti-NeoCon, anti-ultraright bloc. In between, heexpanded the electorate and won clear majorities in every majordemographic bloc of voters, save for whites generally; but even there,he reduced McCain's spread to single digits, and among younger whitevoters and women voters, he won large majorities.

Understanding the New Alliance

It is important to understand the self-interests and expectations ofthis new multiclass alliance. If we get it wrong, we will run into theditch and get bogged down, whether on the right or 'left' side of thatbumpy road, full of potholes and twists and turns.

The Obama alliance is not 'Clintonism in blackface' or 'JFK in Sepia',as some have chauvinistically tagged it. Nor is it 'imperialism with ahuman face,' as if imperialism hasn't always had human faces. Allthese make the mistake of looking backward, Hillary Clinton's mistakeof trying to frame the present and future in the terms of the past.

The Obama team at the top is comprised of global capital'srepresentatives in the U.S as well as U.S. multinational capitalists,and these two overlap but are not the same. It is a faction ofimperialism, and there is no need for us to prettify it, deny it orcover it up in any way. The important thing to see is that it isneither neoliberalism nor the old corporate liberalism. Obama iscarving out a new niche for himself, a work in progress still withinthe bounds of capitalism, but a 'high road' industrial policycapitalism that is less state-centric and more market-based in itsapproach, more Green, more high tech, more third wave andparticipatory, less politics-as-consumerism and more 'public citizen'and education focused. In short, it's capitalism for a multipolarworld and the 21st century.

The unreconstructed neoliberalism and old corporate liberalism,however, are still very much in play. The former is in disarray,largely due to the financial crisis, but the latter is workingovertime to join the Obama team and secure its institutional positionsof power, from White House staff positions to the behind-the-scenesefforts on Wall Street to direct the huge cash flows of the Bail-Outin their favor.

How the Obama Alliance won:Values, Technology and Social Movements

The Obama alliance is an emerging, historic counter-hegemonic bloc,still contending both with its pre-election adversaries and withinitself. It has taken the White House and strengthened its majority inCongress, but the fight is not over. To define the victoriouscoalition simply by the class forces at the top is the error ofreductionism that fails to shine a light on the path ahead.

What is a hegemonic bloc? Most power elites maintain their rule usingmore than armed force. They use a range of tools to maintain hegemony,or dominance, which are 'softer,' meaning they are political andcultural instruments as well as economic and military. They seek asocial base in the population, and draw them into partnership andcoalitions through intermediate civil institutions. Keeping this bloctogether requires a degree of compromise and concession, even if itultimately relies on force. The blocs are historic; they develop overtime, are shaped by the times, and also have limited duration. Whenexternal and internal crises disrupt and lead them to stagnation, anew 'counter-hegemonic' bloc takes shape, with a different alignmentof economic interests and social forces, to challenge it and take itsplace. These ideas were first developed by the Italian communist andlabor leader, Antonio Gramsci, and taken up again in the 1960s by theGerman New Left leader, Rudi Dutschke. They are helpful, especially innonrevolutionary conditions, in understanding both how our adversariesmaintain their power, as well as the strategy and tactics needed toreplace them, eventually by winning a new socialist and populardemocratic order.

As a new historic bloc, the Obama alliance contains several major andminor poles. It is composed of several class forces, a complex socialbase and many social movements which have emerged and engaged in theelectoral struggle. There is both class struggle and other forms ofstruggle within it. There are sharp differences on military policy, onIsrael-Palestine, on healthcare and the bailout. From the outside,there are also serious and sustained struggles against it. And someforces will move both inside and outside the bloc, as circumstanceswarrant or change. It is important to be clear on what the main forcesand components are, and their path to unity. It's also important tounderstand the relation and balance of forces, and how one is notlikely to win at the top what one has not consolidated and won at thebase, nor is failure in one or another battle always cause for astrategic break.

Obama obviously started with his local coalition in Chicago-the Blackcommunity, 'Lakefront liberals' from the corporate world, and a sectorof labor, mainly service workers. The initial new force in the winningnationwide alliance was called out by Obama's early opposition to theIraq war, and his participation in two mass rallies against it, onebefore it began and other after the war was underway. This bothawakened and inspired a large layer of young antiwar activists, someactive for the first time, to join his effort to win the Iowa primary.The fact that he had publicly opposed the war before it had begundistinguished him from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, his chiefopponents. These young people also contributed to the innovativenature of his organization, combining grassroots community organizingwith the many-to-many mass communication tools of internet-basedsocial networking and fundraising. Many had some earlier experienceorganizing and participating in the World Social Forum in Atlanta2007, which energized nearly 10,000 young activists. Those who cameforward put their energy and innovation to good use. Had Obama not wonIowa, it is not likely we would be talking about him today.

The Iowa victory quickly produced another major advance. Up untilthen, most African-American voters favored Hillary Clinton, and weredubious of a Black candidate's chances. But Iowa is one of the'whitest' states in the country, and Obama's win there changed theirminds. In short order, Obama gained wide unity in Black communitiesacross the country, inspiring even more young people, moremultinational and more 'Hip-Hop,' to emerge as a force. Black women intheir churches and Black workers in their unions joined with thealready-engaged younger Black professionals who were seeking a newvoice for their generation. The internet-based fundraising wasbringing in unheard-of amounts of money in small donations. A wing oftrade unions most responsive to Black members came over, setting thestage for Obama's next challenge, winning the Democratic primariesoverall against Hillary Clinton.

Defeating Clinton and the corporate liberals backing her was not easy.Hillary's main weakness was her inability to win the antiwar movement.Obama had mainly won the youth and Blacks, and through them, manyyoung women and many Black women, but he had tough challenges. Clintonstill rallied much of the liberal base and the traditional women'smovement. But it was not enough, nor was she able to deal with all thenew grassroots money flowing his way. Her last reserve was the labormovement, most of which was still supporting her. She tried to keep itwith a fatal error: playing the 'white worker' card in a racist wayagainst Obama. It only moved more progressives to Obama, plus won himwider support in other communities of color, who saw the move for whatit was. Even with her remaining base in a sector of the women'smovement and a large chunk of organized labor, after a fierce fight,he narrowly but clearly defeated her.

Now it was Obama versus McCain, and the Republicans were in the weakerposition. Some think McCain made a mistake picking Sarah Palin as hisVP choice, but actually it was his smarter and stronger card. Todefeat Obama, he had to both energize the GOP core rightwing base,plus win a large majority of the 'white working class.' Palin'sproto-fascist rightwing populism was actually his best shot,especially with its unofficial allies in rightwing media. TheFox-Hannity-Limbaugh machine, and its allies in the right blogosphere,escalated their overtly racist, chauvinist, illegal immigrant-baiting,red-baiting, terror-baiting, anti-Black and anti-Muslim bigotry to aceaseless fever pitch. The aim was to manipulate the significantsocial base of less-educated, more fundamentalist, lower-income whiteworkers who often seek economic relief through being tied to themilitary or the prison-industrial complex. They threw everything, fromthe kitchen sink to the outhouse, at Obama, his family and hismovement. They whipped their crowds into violent frenzies. The SecretService even had to ask them to tone it down, since assassinationthreats were coming out of the woodwork with each rally like this.

This now put organized labor in the critical position. Even thoughthey represented only a minority of workers generally, they had widerinfluence, including into the ranks of the white working-classfamilies who were for Clinton, and leaning to McCain. But bothnational coalitions, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, did the rightthing, and in a big way. They knew McCain was their 'clear andpresent' danger. So they mobilized their resources and members intothe streets, especially in the 'white working class' battlegroundareas in critical electoral states, and among Latino voters in theWest. They won a wide majority of union households. They won amongwomen and younger workers, as well as Latinos and other voters ofcolor. Although they still did not get a majority of white workingclass voters for Obama, they brought the spread down to single digits.In many areas, they did better with Obama than Kerry had done fouryears earlier. It was enough to put Obama over the top.

There are books to be written about many other aspects and componentsof the Obama alliance. But these five: insurgent antiwar youth, aunited African-American community, Latinos and other communities ofcolor, women with a grasp of the importance of reproductive rights andhealth care, and organized labor-these form the major elements of thesocial base of Obama's historic bloc against neoliberalism and theright. Add these to the disgruntled progressive-to-liberal regularDemocratic voters in the suburbs and elsewhere, and it brought the eraof the conservative right's dominance in the White House and Congressto an end.

The Obama Alliance From Below and Within

The alliance was also diverse in terms of political organization. Atthe very bottom grassroots, in the final months, there were often fourcampaigns, overlapping to one degree or another, united to one degreeor another, but not the same by a long shot.

First, the local Obama offices were mainly run by the Obama youth,twenty-somethings, many of them young women, who worked their heartsout, 16-hours-a-day, seven days a week, months on end. They weredeployed in a vast array of 'neighborhood teams,' with old teams oftengenerating new ones, connected via the social networking of their ownblogs, email, cell phones and text messaging. Each team knocked onhundreds, if not thousands of doors, and tracked it all on computers.The full-time leaders were often 'parachuted in' from distant states,skilled mainly in mobilizing others like themselves. But add updozens, even hundreds of teams in a given county, and you're making aserious difference.

Second, the Black community's campaign was more indigenous, moretraditional, more rooted, more deeply proletarian-it made use of theBlack church's social committees, tenant groups and civicorganizations, who widely united. Many day-to-day efforts were in thehands of older Black women who knew everything about everybody, andhad decades of experience in registering and getting out the vote. Insome parts of the country, there were other nationalities working thisway-Latino, Asian, Native American-and they found the way to makecommon cause with the African American community, rebuffing GOPefforts to appeal to anti-Black racism or narrow nationalism as awedge. Some of the older people in these communities learned how touse computers, too, and sent regular contributions to Obama via PayPalin small amounts. But multiply one of these experiencedcommunity-based women organizers by 50,000 or 100,000 more just likeher in another neighborhood or town, and something new and serious isgoing on. They always faced scarce resources, and there was frictionat times with the Obama youth, who were often mostly white or more ofa younger 'Rainbow.' They worked it through, most of the time.

Third, organized labor carried out its campaign in its own way. Theyhad substantial resources for meeting halls, phone banks and thetraditional 'swag' of campaigns-window signs, yard signs, buttons,T-shirts, stickers, banners, professionally done multi-colored flyersdirectly targeted to the top issues of union members and the widerworking class. They put it together as an almost industrial operation,well planned with a division of labor. Top leaders of the union camein, called mass meetings, and in many cases, gave fierce no-nonsensespeeches about 'getting over' fear of Black candidates and assertingthe need to vote their members' interests. The central officesproduced walking maps of union member households and registered voterhouseholds, political district by political district, broken downright to how many people were needed for each door-knocking team tocover each district or neighborhood. They printed maps with drivingdirections. They had tally sheets for interviewing each voter, boxesto check, to be scanned and read by machines when turned in. Hundredsof member-volunteers from that ranks came to each hall, raffles wereheld for free gas cards, and when you got back and turned in yourtallies, free hot dogs and pizza. Sometimes busloads and car caravanswent to other nearby states, to more 'battleground' areas. They oftenshared their halls with the Obama kids, and tried not to duplicateefforts. It was powerful to see, and it worked. There's nothing toreplace a pair of union members standing on the porches of otherworking-class families, talking things over.

Fourth, the actual ongoing structures of the local Democratic Partydid things their way. In many cases, the local regular Democraticleaders were very good, and took part personally in all three ofelements of the campaign described above. But frequently, there was no'mass' to the local Democratic organization. The mass member groups ofthe old Democratic Party were just history. (It was a problem, butalso an opening for new independent mass progressive groups, likeProgressive Democrats of America, to grow). Each incumbent, moreover,had their own staff and core of donors and loyalists, lawyers andmedia consultants, and guarded their own turf. Some were Obamaenthusiasts, some more low-key, but more than a few avoided anyresponsibility to win Hillary voters to Obama. They capitulated to'Democrats for McCain' elements in their base, elements who workedinformally with the GOP right. This latter group was called 'the topof the ticket problem.' They worked their campaigns as independentoperations, but avoided identification with the 'top of the ticket' orthose working locally for it.

The Core Message of Change

While all four of these sub-campaigns were united by the centralmessage and 'change' theme from the top, each also carried out the'change' message in its own way. One issue linking at least three ofthem, save for a few 'Blue Dog' incumbents, was the need for a rapidend to the war. From Obama's personal appearances on down, whenever aspeaker forcefully made this point to a crowd, it got the loudestapplause, if not a standing ovation.

The people in these crowds constitute a new component of the antiwarmovement. It needs to be understood, however, that they have adifferent character than the traditional left-led antiwar rallies.Demands to end the war here are deeply connected with supporting ourtroops, getting them home and out of harm's way, supporting veteransacross the board, expressions of patriotism, and a view of the war asan offense to patriotism. They hate the waste of lives of people fromfamilies they know; and they hate the waste of resources and hugeamounts of money. Ending the war is stressed as the way to lower taxesand revive the economy by spending for projects at home, People willdenounce oil barons, but you'll hear very little put in terms ofanti-imperialism or solidarity with various other liberationsstruggles around the world. 'We were lied to getting us into this',and 'we have our problems to solve here'-that's the underlying themesand watchwords. There are a few incumbents who will take positions tothe right of Obama on the war, trying to stake out various nuanced andlonger 'exit strategy' processes, or who just don't mention the war atall. But at the base, most just want to troops rapidly and safely out,while a few cling to the right's calls for 'victory.' But there's notmuch in the middle.

The other components of 'change' at the base are, first and foremost,new jobs and new industries. People are especially motivated bypractical plans for Green Jobs in alternative energies and majorinfrastructural repair, health care for everyone, schools and supportfor students, and debt relief and other protections of their economicsecurity in the face of the Wall Street crash. In fact, the WallStreet crash was the major factor in many older voters rejectingMcCain and going for Obama. Regarding health care, many unions andlocal government bodies are signing on to HR 676, Single-Payer healthcare, but some will accept many other things, wisely or not, as a stepin that direction or an improvement over the current setup.

The Nature of Rising Hegemonic Blocs

Within the Obama historic bloc, there are at least four contendingtrends regarding 'change' and political economy-two major and twominor. The two major ones come mainly from the top, while the twominor ones come from below.

At the top, the Obama White House will be pulled in two directions.The first is the 'tinkering at the top' approach of traditionalcorporate liberal capitalism, mostly concerned with securing the majorbanks by covering their debts and reducing the deficit through 'sharedausterity' cutbacks. The emphasis will be on greatergovernment-imposed efficiencies in entitlement programs, tax reformand adjustments in global trade agreements. Some of their favoredprograms, like pressing businesses to provide more 401K plans foremployees, may be set aside because of the stock market' volatility.

The second direction is Obama's own often-asserted 'High Road' greenindustrial policy capitalism, which wants to restrict and punish purespeculation in the 'Casino Economy' in favor of targeted governmentinvestment in massive infrastructure and research, encouraging thegrowth of new industries with 'Green Jobs' in alternative energysectors. Since resources are not infinite, there will be a majortension and competition for funds between two rival sectors--a newgreen industrial-education policy sector and an oldhydrocarbon-military-industrial sector. It's a key task of the leftand progressive movements to add their forces to uniting with andbuilding up the former, while opposing and weakening the grip of thelatter. This is the 'High Road' vs. 'Low Road' strategy widelydiscussed in progressive think tanks and policy circles.

From below, Obama is being presented with a plethora ofredistributionist 'New New Deal' plans, including Rep DennisKucinich's 16 Points, to Sen. Bernie Sanders 4 Points, to theInstitute for Policy Studies 'Progressive Majority' plan. One outlier'Buy Out, Not Bail Out' proposal, David Schweickart's EconomicDemocracy option, goes beyond redistributionism, and proposes deepstructural reforms of public ownership in the equity of financialfirms in exchange for the bailout, in turn directing capital intocommunity investment banks to build worker-controlled options withinthe new wealth creation firms of green industries.

From the other side, the unreconstructed rightwing neoliberals will beout of positions of executive power but not without positions ofinfluence. Centered among the House GOP and allied with the rightwingmedia populists and anti-global nationalists, with Lou Dobbs as aspokesman, they will remain a powerful opposition force. They arelikely to try to sabotage Obama, as best as they can without their ownmass base, suffering from the crisis, turning against them. This wasthe role they played in the rightist opposition to the corporateliberal bailout plans stirred up by the far right Human Eventsjournalists.

The key point here is shaping the exact nature of what Obama unfoldsas 'change.' What will bring about any progressive reform and protect'Main Street' and the 'Middle Class' against 'Wall Street' is stillopen and not fully formed. In fact, it will be a focus of intensestruggle both internally at the top and on the part of mass socialmovements defending and advancing their interests from below. Classstruggle will unfold within the bloc, to be sure.

The Bankruptcy of the Ultraleft

This is where the questions facing the left and an account of itstasks become critical. What is our role? Who are our friends andallies? Who are our adversaries, of various sorts? What is our leftplatform within broader proposals for growing and uniting aprogressive majority? What is our strategy, tactics and orientationfor moving forward? All these need to be re-examined in this dynamicand new situation.

We have to start by acknowledging the real crisis across the entiresocialist left for some time. While some progress and innovation hasbeen made by some in recent years, no one is surging ahead with majorgrowth and breakthroughs. What this election, its outcome, its battlesand ebb and flow, and the engagement of the masses, has especiallydone is reveal the utter bankruptcy of almost the entire anti-ObamaTrotskyist, anarchist and Maoist left, save for a few groupings andsome individuals. The crisis was not nearly as deep among the widerleft-those hundreds of thousands working among trade union activists,community organizers and our country's intellectual community, butoften not identified with a given socialist group or anarchistproject. Whatever their problems, most of them understood thiselection and what to do, even if their efforts were limited. They 'gotit right', even if they lacked the organizational means to advance thesocialist project.

But among those belonging to organized socialist and anarchist groupswith enough resources to put out their views, most got it dead wrong.On the election, only the CCDS (Committees of Correspondence forDemocracy and Socialism, cc-ds.org, ) the Communist Party USA,cpusa.org, and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO,freedomroad.org) got it mostly right, mainly because they have somegrasp on the importance of racism, elections and mass democracy. Butwe know these three groups, even if well situated, are rather smalland not growing in any major way. Next was DSA which at least saw theimportance of defeating McCain and backing Obama, even though theyonly managed to put out a rather wimpy pro-forma statement withoutonce mentioning race. The other 10-to-15 groups, with the largermajority of organized US socialists, communists and Marxists in them,failed miserably, whatever the subjective feelings and views of theirindividual members. Besides broadsides against Obama and those backinghim, they had nothing new or relevant to say, and some of them didn'tbother to say anything, especially among the anarchists. Go to thesixty or more Indymedia sites, and you hardly see anything useful saidbesides macho bluster and shit-talk against the fewpro-voting-for-Obama postings put up.

This is the face of this crisis: While there was an upsurge ofmillions of Obama volunteers in one of the most critical elections inour history, a true milestone, which was combined with directengagement from a united Black community and the best elements oflabor, from precisely the sectors all of them have been claiming totry to reach for decades, and almost all they could was bark at them:'You're deluded!' You're Obamaniacs! 'You're wrong!' 'Obama is acapitalist!' 'Don't Drink the Kool-Aid! Obama is the more dangerouswarmonger because he's the new 'Uncle Tom' Black face of imperialism!'

If the question of the day was immediate working-class mass action onseizing power from the capitalist class, for reform vs. revolution,socialism or capitalism NOW, they might have had a point. But it'snot. Even with the financial crisis, it's not even close. Besidesgetting troops out of this or that country, they don't even have apackage of demands or structural reforms worthy of the name being putforward. Worse of all, they don't think any distinction betweenrevolutionary and non-revolutionary conditions is all that important.What that means, in turn, is that it's almost impossible for them, asgroups and as a trend, to correct their course.

It's not a matter of being critical of Obama. Everyone engaged in hismovement had criticisms and alternate positions of all sorts. Somemade them public, some did not-but all these did so in a way designedto help him win, not to take him down, to add votes to his totals, notto subtract them.

As mentioned, the wider left, the left that defines itself as morethan liberal but not necessarily socialist, did relatively well. Theseare the union-based organizers, community organizers, campusorganizers, and the readers of Portside, The Nation, BlackCommentator, Huffington Post and DailyKOS. For the most part, theywere fully engaged for Obama in this election. Comparing the onlinecommentary in these media voices and outlets with that of theIndymedia anarchists and the socialist papers of the far left was asrevealing as the difference between noon and midnight.

We have to break decisively with this ultra-left, semi-anarchistperspective. While the hard core of this trend is small, it reach iswider than some might think. It's not a matter of purges; it's amatter of emancipating the minds of many on the radical left from olddogma. There's no way forward under these new conditions if we don't.We have to break with it not only in our own ranks, the groups workingwith 'Progressives for Obama', where it's not that influential, butacross all the mass democratic organizations of the wider socialmovements as well. We have to spotlight it, stand up to it, isolate itand defeat it. It's not that we are demanding a split. The split hasalready taken place over the past two years, in real life and inactual battles. Many of us, for instance, stood up to the rightwingmedia's racist attacks on Obama, his family and his movement; othersfrom this corner of the left added fuel to the fascists' fires andfanned the flames. We are sharply divided. We are as far apart inpractice as we can be. What we have to do is acknowledge it, sum upits lessons, and warn others of its dangers, and try to unite all whocan be united on a new path forward.

Charting Our Path Forward

So what is our path? Again, we start by getting clarity on where weare. We were in an alliance with Obama and the forces and movementsthat brought him to power against the NeoCon neoliberals and the farright. If we assess things accurately, we'll see that we are still inthis alliance, although its nature is changing. We are part of a newemerging counter-hegemonic bloc in our country, an historic multiclassalliance. The Obama forces at the top are in turn linked to themultipolar, multilateralist sector of global capital. A new bloc onthis higher, global level is both trying to consolidate its poweragainst its rivals and maintain a degree of both unity and struggleamong the contenting poles and centers of power within it. Our task isto grow the strength of the left, the working class, and broadercommunities allies within it, to secure strong points, and to win,step by step, the 'long march through the institutions' until weemerge with a new counter-hegemonic bloc of our own, in an entirelydifferent period.

From the beginning, the Obama alliance brought togetherleft-progressive forces, along with moderate center and center-rightforces, from the grass roots level through middle-layer institutionsto the top. No one or even two of these voting blocs was enough to winalone. It took the entire coalition to win-and driving out any onepart of it may have made defeat far more likely and risky. We werepart of a left-progressive pole in a broader sub-bloc comprised ofsocial movements, primarily antiwar youth, minority nationalitycommunities and organized labor. While we were the most numerous ofthe blocs, we were not necessarily the most powerful.

A political pole or sub-bloc's power in electoral campaigns is acombination of three things-first, an organized platform of ideasappropriate to solving the problems of the day that, second, is inturn embodied in organized grassroots voters and, third, thoseorganizations have readily available amounts of organized money. Wecan take part in an alliance without some or even all of these things,but we shouldn't then expect much clout.

Let's look at each of these three elements from the perspective ofleft-progressive activists.

What was our platform? First, we stressed an end to the war in Iraqand a prevention of wider wars, even if Obama talked of going intoAfghanistan in a bigger way. Second, we were demanding 'Healthcare NotWarfare,' and in many cases, pressing HR 676 Single-Payer even ifObama opposed it. Third, we stressed Green Jobs and New Schools, andObama eventually pushed these in a big way. Fourth, we stressedAlternative Energies over dirty coal, offshore oil and unsafe nukeplants, even if Obama waffled. Fifth, we wanted Expanded Democracy andFair Elections, and Obama pressed voter registration and early votingin a big way.

The Obama volunteers in the official campaign often couldn't putthings out exactly like this. Their messaging was more controlled fromthe center. But nothing stopped either organized labor or independentforces like PDA, MDS or other local groups connected to 'Progressivesfor Obama' from exercising our 'independence and initiative within thebroader front.' We simply did what we thought best, but in a way thatstill maintained solid unity among local allies.

The Importance of Independent Mass Democracy

How did we organize voters? Many progressives simply worked throughthe local Obama campaign, registering and identifying voters with theneighbor teams. This was fine, especially if you spent some time in amutual education process with the young staffers. But some of us werelooking for something more independent and lasting. So we joined withgroups like PDA, or set up 'voters for peace' groupings based on localcoalitions, or worked through union locals. The idea was for theinformation gained--voter lists, donor lists, volunteers lists,contacts and such-to remain in the hands of the new grassrootsformations, to grow them in size and scope, so as to help furtherstruggles down the road.

To be sure, our influence, compared to the incredibly sophisticated,well-funded and innovative Obama campaign, was relatively minor. Thatdidn't matter so much; what was important was that we weren't simply atail on the Democratic machinery, but that we were building our ownindependent strength for the future. In nearly every major city,independent blogs or clusters of blogs went up to serve as a publicface and organizing hubs of these grassroots forces. Case in point:The local Obama offices are now all closed, but our local groups orcoalitions have doubled or tripled in size, we now have news blogsgetting thousands of hits, and our efforts are ongoing and moreconnected with labor and community allies.

How did we raise money? To be frank, we didn't raise that muchindependently. This is a fault, not a virtue. Some groups in theAfrican-American community went into the T-shirt and button business,making a range of campaign items, selling them to raise stipends, gasmoney and donations to Obama, then turning some over to make moreT-shirts and buttons, and so on. In some places, we relied a good dealon the resources supplied at local union halls-meeting space, phones,and printed materials. 'Progressives for Obama' kept itself alive froma few initial startup donations from individuals, then from its twoblogs and listservs on the Internet via PayPal in small amounts.

But to return to our platform of issues and demands, the keyunderlying principle was segmenting the business community intoproductive versus speculative capital, rather than asserting anall-round anti-capitalist or anti-corporate perspective. We want tosee mills reopened with new companies we can support that would makewind turbines via Green Jobs, while we oppose the Casino gamblers onWall Street or insurance company parasites blocking universal healthcare. People can and will denounce every sort of corporate crime oroutrage to make a point. But when it came to the platform of reformsfor uses of our taxes dollars, we were much more focused on what kindof businesses we wanted to see grow, and how we wanted them to relateto their workers and surrounding communities. This approach did verywell in getting many rank-and-file workers to take us seriously,especially in areas where many people suffer more from the lack ofbusiness than its presence.

The main point is that we now have mass democratic organizationanchored in many communities, workplaces and schools, and that theyhave a basis to expand. PDA is a good example. Starting with only afew dozen people in 2004 with an 'inside-outside' independent view ofdealing and working with Democrats, they have grown to some 150,000people scattered across the country in every major city, with most ofthat growth taking place in the context of the last campaign to defeatthe GOP and McCain. At the Democratic convention, together with TheNation magazine, PDA delivered a week-long series of panels andworkshops that drew thousands of activists and hundreds of delegates,establishing itself as the 'Progressive Central' mobilizing andorganizing pole for the week in Denver. Many PDA local chaptersmobilized members that became the backbone of the Obama campaignoffices, as well as boosting local labor mobilizations. The PDAchapters built their credibility by advocating Healthcare Not Warfareand backing local progressive candidates down the ticket. They helpedunite progressives within the various trends of the Obama campaignwith local unity events.

On a smaller scale, Movement for a Democratic Society groups did well,too Austin, Texas is a great example, where they combined with 'TheRag' blog, which is now getting over 25,000 hits a month. On campuses,where the New SDS was able to make a break with anarchism and relateto the Obama youth, they also report successes and growth.

The Critical Priority of Organizationand the Relative Importance of Socialist Tasks

What the heart of this says is that for left-to-progressive activists,organization-building trumps movement-building in this period. Themovements are very wide and diverse, and in front of our noses. Butthe current wave has just peaked, and will now ebb a bit. Insituations like this, it's more important than ever to consolidate thegains of mass struggle, including electoral struggle, into lastingorganizations, either expanding earlier ones or building new ones. Thesame goes for coalition-building of local clusters of organizations,then networking them across the country, horizontally and vertically,via the internet. We need organizers now, more so than activists andagitators.

What about the 'socialism' part of the socialist left? Up to thispoint, I've mainly addressed the mass democratic tasks we share incommon with the non-socialist left and progressive activistsgenerally. Fortunately or unfortunately the Wall Street financialcrisis combined with the right wing's red baiting of Obama as a'Marxist' and 'socialist' has given the 'S' word far wider circulationand interest than it's had in decades. Unfortunately, in the massmedia, it's mainly discussed in a one-dimensional, cartoonish way as'socialism for the rich' or 'sharing the wealth.'

No matter. This expanded media buzz serves to underscore the mainaspect of our socialist tasks in today's conditions. Our work here ismainly that of education, theoretical work, and the development ofprogram and policy options. We need our own think tanks and networksof study groups developing our policies and platforms for deepstructural reforms that serve as transitional levers to a newsocialism. Before we can fight for it, we better have a fairly clearidea of what it is in this country in today's world-both amongourselves and the wider circles of the best left and progressiveorganizers with whom we want to share this learning process andsocialist project.

It is a good time, however, to expand this work in a serious way. Onesmall example: in the context of the initial wave of reaction to theWall Street crash, and the first round of progressive proposals todeal with it, 'Progressives for Obama' asked David Schweickart, one ofour country's foremost proponents of socialist theory, to write up histake on it. He wrote not only his account of why the crisis happened,but also briefly contrasted today's capitalism and its downturn andcrash with the socialist alternative. His own 'successor systemtheory' of Economic Democracy, however, is designed to be a bridge tosocialist options. If we, the public, are to buy up the bad debt offailed banks and firms, why not demand equity in the stock and publicseats on the board, or buy them out entirely. Instead of simply payingoff debt and providing the wherewithal for big bonuses and GoldenParachutes, why not do more than simply restrict or forbid this? Whynot use these now-public resources to launch local community-ownedinvestment banks to partner with labor and local government andentrepreneurs to build the new worker-owned factories of greenindustries and alternative energies?

These are excellent take-off points. Schweickart's article was widelycirculated as an authoritative piece, commented on across thepolitical spectrum. In several cities, leftists in and around theObama campaign even set up study groups to go over it. This shouldn'tbe exaggerated, but it does show the possibilities and frames oursocialist tasks more accurately.

Both Immediate and Transitional Programs

But the more pressing task for us as part of the left is sharply andconcretely outlining our immediate and transitional programs and theirplatforms. The immediate program of demands, like Kucinich's 16Points, are basically redistributionist programs aimed at takingwealth from above and spreading it around below. Given the vastinequalities of our society, that is both pressing and desirable. As astimulus, it also spurs the generation of new wealth. The transitionalprogram of deep structural reform, like Schweickart's EconomicDemocracy, takes public resources to generate new wealth, but in a waythat alters power relations in favor of the working class and broaderpublic.

Some of the best proposals and projects on the table combine both ofthese. The Apollo Alliance, where steelworkers and environmentalistscome together, put forward a range of recession-busting programs. VanJones' Green Jobs programs for inner city youth do the same, as doesHR 676 Single-Payer health care. The Blue-Green Alliance is still another.

Our task is to put flesh on these in a way that melds with our localconditions. We start by uniting antiwar Obama youth, community andlabor locally, then build outwards and upwards from there. We startwith an understanding of the critical role of a unitedAfrican-American community, the most consistent defenders and fightersfor a progressive agenda in the country, especially when it works inalliance with Latinos and other minority nationalities. We also graspthe significance of women and labor, and the overall intersection ofrace, gender and class in defining our policies, seeking out allies,and setting priorities. We design a package of critical local reforms,whether in rebuilding Ohio River locks and dams, constructinghigh-speed rail in California, or delivering single-payer healthcareeverywhere. Then we make the fights for these a centerpiece to unitethe entire area, win over all the public officials that we can, andthen, in turn, take it to an Obama administration, demanding an end tothe war and war making, in order to fund it and make it happen. It'sreally the only way out of this mess.

Our great victory in this election, finally, is that efforts andprograms like this won't fall on deaf ears. The challenge to Obama isthat to get it done, he has to end the war, avoid wider wars and cutthe military budget in a major way. If he does, he can be a greatpresident. If he doesn't, he'll have hell to pay.

Summary

Here are the key points, once again:

1. We have won a major victory, now consolidate its gains.

2. Start where you are, and build mass democratic grassroots groupsbringing together the best local activists from the Obama campaign andothers like it.

3. Build a coalition with local partners in labor, campus andcommunity groups that did the same.

4. Start local left-progressive blogs to have a public face, and linkit to others.

5. Develop a program of deep structural reform and immediate needs foryour area, and take it upward and outward through the electedofficials and government bodies, all the way to the top.

6. Break decisively with the ultraleft mindset, in order to deepen andbroaden left-progressive unity.

7. Prepare the ground for mass mobilization to end the war thisspring, and to prevent wider war. Link this battle to the economy.Green Jobs over War Jobs, New Schools, Not More Prisons, HealthCareNot Warfare, Peace and Prosperity, Not War, Greed and Crisis. You getthe idea.

8. Study socialism seriously, the version for today, and bring it tobear in developing policy and uniting the most advanced fighters forthe whole, not just the part, and for the future, not just the present.

[If you liked this article, go to http://progressivesforobama.net, andoffer some support by using the PayPal button. Other writings by CarlDavidson are available at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com and contacthim for speaking engagements at carld717@gmail.com ]

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

BANKING ON OBAMA WITH OPEN EYESI'M VOTING FOR THE BLACK MANNativo Vigil LopezNational President, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)

The American people can now rejoice in one of the greatest blows against racism in its history - the election of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. This is the culmination of a two-year campaign for the son of an immigrant African father and a white Irish- American mother born and raised in middle America Kansas. Obama qualified the election success as "a defining moment" for America in his victory speech.

No matter your take on his politics - either from the left or right - president-elect Obama will be considered an American epic figure. He has smashed the race barrier and the glass ceiling, and he did it not just with the black vote, but a quilt of votes from all races, national origins, ages, party affiliations, ethnic groups, and ideological inclinations. The vote count bears this out. But the story is also about white America that favored the Democratic candidate by 43%, a higher margin than that received by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid. While blacks and Latinos can claim him as "our" president, the reality is that the combined votes of blacks and Latinos would not have been sufficient to sweep him into office. This speaks volumes for white voters who did not allow race to be a factor in their determination to select the new father of our country.

What mattered more to the voters, according to exit polls, was the economy - by a margin of 68%. Interestingly, the issue of immigration did not even rate as an interest of concern to the voters, notwithstanding the hardboiled anti-immigrant campaigning during the primary elections by the Republican Party.

The "Yes We Can" (Si Se Puede) slogan encapsulated the spirit of Americans across the board who wanted change, and fought for it with expressions of hope and reconciliation. It is a slogan taken straight out of the playbook of Cesar Chavez in mounting the movement to organize farmworkers in California during the 1960s. It is a slogan now chanted by Americans across the country to reflect their optimism about creating a different country, about creating change. It is an adamant and defiant chant, repeated by Obama before half-a-million celebrants in Chicago last night, which poses a positive determination of what will come. This is how Cesar presented his case at a different historic juncture.

We have overcome, the words uttered by an African American woman celebrating in Chicago after the announcement of the results, and overheard by a television commentator. This is the past tense of those words declared in a televised speech by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 when he introduced the Voting Rights Act to the U.S. Congress - we shall overcome - words that he appropriately appropriated from the civil rights movement that demanded and struggled to obtain this legislation. It is said that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. openly wept when he saw and heard President Johnson on television repeat those words. He said that he never thought he would live to see a white man embrace this slogan. But King, like Obama 44 years later, was responsible for bringing together the political and social forces to create the opportunity and the moment.

This election reveals who we are as a people, and reveals this to the world. Does anyone ever remember when people throughout the world celebrated the victory of a U.S. presidential candidate as they did for the Obama victory as if to embrace him as their own president and their own victory? This is what the major media networks have reported.

Spike Lee characterized the moment as historic for the country, and that now we will reference U.S. history as BBO and ABO - Before Barack Obama and After Barack Obama. Doug Wilder, the former first black governor of Virginia, said he was "proud of America, and especially proud of Virginia." Pat Buchanan, an extremely conservative author and television pundit declared, "the Republican Party lost the Reagan Democrats in this election." Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D- Illinois), observed, "The genius of the Obama campaign was that he ran as an American who happened to be an African American."

The American electorate has grown as a result of this election cycle - an estimated 133 million people voted, eleven million more than in 2004, 64% of the eligible voters. Blacks increased their share of the electorate to 13%, two percent above their role in 2004. Some other figures help to understand the moment. Blacks voted for Obama by a margin of 95%, Latinos by 66%, and young voters also by 66% - in political parlance this is a super-majority. Latinos brought home the winning of the West by voting more than 2-1 for Obama in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Latino support in Nevada - an important swing state - for the first black president of the nation was 74%. And, the united black and Latino vote in Florida was responsible for carrying this state. This Latino electorate performance smashes forever the racist myth rolled out by many media pundits after the Super Tuesday primaries in February that Latinos would never vote for a black man for president. Latinos proved them wrong - big time.

I'M VOTING FOR THE BLACK MAN

In December 2007, I attended an immigration conference in Houston, Texas. I took a taxicab to return to the airport, and struck up a conversation with the driver, an African American, and it eventually got to the elections. I asked him whom he was supporting for president. Without missing a beat, he responded, "I'm voting for the black man." He added that "the first 43 presidents have been white men, so why not give the black man a chance, he couldn't do any worst." The logic was compelling. One month later the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), for which I serve as national president, celebrated its endorsement convention and the hundreds of delegates unanimously voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president. The organization formed MAPA FOR OBAMA chapters and joined the campaign. The members resolved to cast their lot with our black brothers and sisters and look forward to the "change we need" - the Obama campaign slogan.

Many tears were shred, including my own, at the sheer delight of hearing president-elect Obama pronounce his speech at Grant Park in Chicago. I am proud of my president-elect, proud of white America, proud of the black community who demonstrated leadership, patience, and discipline moving towards this election, and proud of Latinos who showed the world that it is willing to support a candidate for the content of his character and not the color of his skin. The latter was a confirmation of what I have always experienced in life.

Obama's victory speech was somber in my interpretation and he took great pains to lower expectations within the context of expressing optimism, accomplishment, gratitude, and reflecting on the historic moment in reference to Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He staked out a laudatory posture of reconciliation and reaching across the isle in a big way. This is how he intends on governing in a too-fractured America.

Like many other Americans, I too am banking on Obama just as Obama banked on Latinos to win the West. There is probably no issue of great import to the country that could not be considered a Latino issue. Everything in his platform speaks to our needs - the economy, financial markets, a more progressive tax policy, homeownership, ending the war in Iraq, re-building the infrastructure, global warming, the development of alternative energy sources and ending our dependence on fossil fuels, universal healthcare, and certainly, comprehensive immigration reform. We have everything to benefit from this presidency, but it will more likely occur by continued organizing, mobilizing, and being present, and being counted.

We should have no illusions about the speed of change we need and want, or about the ability of president-elect Barack Obama to deliver. There will be great difficulties. President Bush will hand over a basket-case of a country, two wars, a half-a-trillion dollar budget deficit, a doubled national debt of $11 trillion, millions of home foreclosures, one million jobs lost during the last twelve months alone, and a economic recession that will only deepen. These are overarching challenges for any new president. But, these too are our challenges. And, from crisis comes opportunity.

Join us in this prolonged campaign for driver's licenses and visas for our families. The first step in making change is to join an organization that pursues the change we desire. We welcome you to our ranks.Other organizations leading this movement include: Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), MAPA Youth Leadership, Liberty and Justice for Immigrants Movement, National Alliance for Immigrant's Rights, and immigrant's rights coalitions throughout the U.S..

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Latinos have been stepping up across the nation to help bring the change we need.

They know Barack Obama wants to make sure Washington is working for every community, and making the long-overdue changes in education, health care, immigration, and economic opportunity that will help our Latino communities.

With only days until Election Day, your support is more important than ever.

We've put together a video about Latinos getting involved to help Barack.

Watch the video, then sign up to help in the final push:

Everything will come down to these last few days. No matter what anyone says, this election will be decided on the ground by dedicated people helping to get out the vote.

We're almost there -- and we need you to take us over the finish line.

Watch the video and take action to make sure we bring the change we need: